Chennai Court April 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sornammall Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.239
Charles Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the South Indian Export Company--I will refer to them hereafter as the Company--applied to the Court for an order under Section 108 of the Insolvency Act that the estate of one Muruga Pillai deceased should be administered in insolvency. The application states that the deceased at the time of his death was indebted to the Company in the sum of about Rs. 50,000. It also states that by three agreements the deceased had hypothecated skins and other things and also deposited with the Company the title-deeds of certain properties to Secure the re-payment of the amount due to the Company, but that the Company were informed that the value of the security held by them did not exceed Rs. 30,000 and they claimed to be unsecured creditors for the balance. An order was made on this application. The order was under Section 109. Section 109, Sub-section(1), provides : ' Upon an order being made for the administration of a deceased debtor's estate under Secti...
V.S.K.M. Subramania Pillai and anr. Vs. Paramasivan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.864
Tyabji, J.1. The question is whether , the 2nd defendant ought to have been exonerated from his suretyship under Section 135 of the Indian Contract Act.2. Damodar Das v. Muhammad Hussain 22 A. 351 : A.W.N. (1900) 106. is relied upon by the petitioner to show that the promise to give time must be for consideration. However, it seems that the facts in the present case were to the following effect : the 1st defendant asked for time : the 2nd defendant agreed to give it and on this, the 1st defendant paid part of the debt.. This part-payment may be taken to be the consideration for the promise to give time'. If this is so then the learned Judge below was right and the petition will be dismissed but without costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›